Heart Rate Help (Read 1048 times)

Yes my range is 48 to 161 - and I am using your spreadsheet to calculate the various rates (thanks).

The course is mostly flat with some gradual elevation changes - but mile 17 has about 100 ft gain in 1/4 mile - on that I kept the HR at the elevated 137 but the pace fell off by by about 30 seconds, and that was with the corresponding decrease on the other side of the hill (all of this can be seen in my log).

I have read your website regarding using HR and found it very informative - again, thanks.

Your answers here pretty much confirmed what I was thinking - was mainly looking to confirm - now just need to make some adjustments before my next long run. I do have a 10K race coming up in a couple of weeks - that should also help to confirm some of my numbers for goal setting.

I started reading this thread a few days ago and was intrigued. I usually run a 9:00 to 9:30 pace and my average HR is typically below 170, maxing in the 170s. I ran 8x800 intervals yesterday and noticed my HR peaked at around 185 without feeling any distress. I include this information as a reference because I don't know my formal maximum heart rate.

I planned a two-hour run today and decided to try to keep my HR below 150; I got a few miles out and decided to increase the target to 160 because I can't run much and keep it below 150. 160 kept me to an 11:40 pace and I had to walk occasionally even there. Does all this indicates that I'm not very fit?

I deny that conclusion! I reject your reality and substitute my own. My reality says I can finish a half in two hours on 2/3/13.

My take... I would not say it indicates that you're not fit (but I can't verify that either way). I'd go by feel until you know a bit more about your own HR levels (if you choose to use HR... obviously it's not for everyone). If you don't feel like you're pushing it at 150, it was smart to try higher. If you were not attempting to reach your max, you likely did not hit your max at 185. Hitting a max HR is (to me anyway) a difficult task, although it can be done with a series of 800s. (I usually have to do it at the tail end of a 5k or a similar race.) Until you know your max (and I don't recommend the age based formulas) just go by feel... run what you think is right on a reasonably cool day on fairly flat terrain and see what your HR is. That could serve as a good target HR to maintain. I allow about 6 BPM more uphill... seems about right... see if it works for you. This will cause slower uphills and faster downhillls (but be careful if you're not used to faster downhill running... build up to it).

Yes my range is 48 to 161 - and I am using your spreadsheet to calculate the various rates (thanks).

The course is mostly flat with some gradual elevation changes - but mile 17 has about 100 ft gain in 1/4 mile - on that I kept the HR at the elevated 137 but the pace fell off by by about 30 seconds, and that was with the corresponding decrease on the other side of the hill (all of this can be seen in my log).

I have read your website regarding using HR and found it very informative - again, thanks.

Your answers here pretty much confirmed what I was thinking - was mainly looking to confirm - now just need to make some adjustments before my next long run. I do have a 10K race coming up in a couple of weeks - that should also help to confirm some of my numbers for goal setting.

Thanks for the feedback Still Bluesky. I think you picked a great increase (6 beats per minute) for the uphill. This all seems just right to me with that 100ft hill in a 1/4 mile. I couldn't get to your log, but would like to see the pace when you went downhill. Agreed, 10k's are a great race to gain a better understanding. Glad the info was useful. Let me know if I can help anytime.

Thanks for the feedback Still Bluesky. I think you picked a great increase (6 beats per minute) for the uphill. This all seems just right to me with that 100ft hill in a 1/4 mile. I couldn't get to your log, but would like to see the pace when you went downhill. Agreed, 10k's are a great race to gain a better understanding. Glad the info was useful. Let me know if I can help anytime.

Happy running!

Log is now open to all. Better info is available on Garmin Connect - not sure how to share that. But my HR was 131 at the base, 144 at the top, and 127 on the down side. Pace went from 9:09 to 9:32 to 8:38.

Overall this workout was a good effort. Did the same run 4 weeks ago (before I got my HRM) and ran about a minute slower. Unfortunately, both of these were much slower than an effort back in September - midway between my two marathons. Much of it must be mental - back then I was motivated - today, not so much.

Log is now open to all. Better info is available on Garmin Connect - not sure how to share that. But my HR was 131 at the base, 144 at the top, and 127 on the down side. Pace went from 9:09 to 9:32 to 8:38.

Overall this workout was a good effort. Did the same run 4 weeks ago (before I got my HRM) and ran about a minute slower. Unfortunately, both of these were much slower than an effort back in September - midway between my two marathons. Much of it must be mental - back then I was motivated - today, not so much.

These make sense given the terrain. I believe the HRM will really help with motivation. The even spreading out of effort really helps, and seeing your pace drop for the same HR is a huge mental boost.

For an even effort, I'd consider slowing down a bit up the hill and practicing your ability to speed up down the hill (don't blast down steep hills except as you become used to it... it can be hard on your body even without feeling it at first - this is the classic mistake that many beginners make in Boston.. blasting downhill when they are not used to it). On the downhill, I can usually gain back most (not quite all) of what I lost on the uphill. I find that I'm overall faster by spreading out the effort... not attempting to hold a specific pace.

Thanks for the comments. I can't help but wonder, however, how long it'll be (and what it'll take) before I can run with a heart rate lower than 160.

That's a difficult call in any case and especially so because I don't know your history at all. But I can give some typical reactions that may help your curiosity. If are coming back after a significant break, or have significantly increased miles recently (hopefully sufficiently slowly to avoid injury) then your HR should show improvements fairly quickly (over a few weeks). If you've been at this same level for a long time and are not changing much, then it could take longer (but benefits do accumulate over years).

I started reading this thread a few days ago and was intrigued. I usually run a 9:00 to 9:30 pace and my average HR is typically below 170, maxing in the 170s. I ran 8x800 intervals yesterday and noticed my HR peaked at around 185 without feeling any distress. I include this information as a reference because I don't know my formal maximum heart rate.

I planned a two-hour run today and decided to try to keep my HR below 150; I got a few miles out and decided to increase the target to 160 because I can't run much and keep it below 150. 160 kept me to an 11:40 pace and I had to walk occasionally even there. Does all this indicates that I'm not very fit?

I deny that conclusion! I reject your reality and substitute my own. My reality says I can finish a half in two hours on 2/3/13.

I think different people are built differently. From what I've read, the majority of people consider upper 150s/160s as quite high, whereas for me, I run comfortably in the 170s, and only start feeling real discomfort if I exceed 190.

Using an HRM has been, for me, a great benefit as I started running and learning my body - for example, on some of my more intense runs, prior to the HRM, I was usually feeling quite unwell after the runs, but I figured that was just because I was out of shape, and I needed to keep pushing myself. My first intense run with my HRM, I realized that the issue was that I was hitting almost 210 bpm. I immediately started taking it *much* easier, and I'm very glad that I have the HRM...

These days I still use my HRM, even though I can usually tell around where my heart rate is by feel, to within 5 or so bpm, but now I mostly use it for either forcing myself to keep my pace slow on long easy runs, and just data collection - I like to see my HR go down over time for the same length/speed/intensity of run, and I just like seeing data points in general...

I started reading this thread a few days ago and was intrigued. I usually run a 9:00 to 9:30 pace and my average HR is typically below 170, maxing in the 170s. I ran 8x800 intervals yesterday and noticed my HR peaked at around 185 without feeling any distress. I include this information as a reference because I don't know my formal maximum heart rate.

I planned a two-hour run today and decided to try to keep my HR below 150; I got a few miles out and decided to increase the target to 160 because I can't run much and keep it below 150. 160 kept me to an 11:40 pace and I had to walk occasionally even there. Does all this indicates that I'm not very fit?

I deny that conclusion! I reject your reality and substitute my own. My reality says I can finish a half in two hours on 2/3/13.

I am not a heart rate person. It seems like a lot of data and not the most important thing early in training... and I do not think there's enough information there to judge race capability no matter what.

However, if your goal is really 2 hours in the half and that's not some foregone conclusion you are pointing out as you can break 2 hours any moment, you no way should be usually running 9-9:30. I can't imagine running my half marathon pace all the time, or anywhere close to it. That'll beat you up. Again, not a comment on your capability... but it would be a reason for a high heart rate.

However, if your goal is really 2 hours in the half and that's not some foregone conclusion you are pointing out as you can break 2 hours any moment, [...]

I'm not sure it's a foregone conclusion; I'm torn between feeling that I won't hit that time and that I should be aiming for better.

I've never been a fast runner so I hesitate to use my recent 5K (24:48) or 10K (55:12) times to predict my half performance, and looking at my HR doesn't help me very much either. I feel comfortable running at 9:30/mile and can cruise well below 9:00 when I'm feeling good, but I don't want to count on that for 13.1 miles. 9:09 feels like a reasonably safe target. Perhaps, after my (taper and) race, I'll have enough information to reevaluate my performance goals.

I am not a heart rate person. It seems like a lot of data and not the most important thing early in training... and I do not think there's enough information there to judge race capability no matter what.

Just a different perspective here... Others likely use HR differently, but I don't really use it to judge race capability. In training, I use it to keep me as close to the beneficial level of effort for improvements. In a race, I use it to keep me at the edge of a consistent effort throughout the race (helped by knowing the numbers from training. My last PR was NOT my target time (was hoping for sub 3:20, which would have been a 4+ minute PR... governed by HR, I came in a 3:15:38... nice surprise by governing effort with HR). At 52, I'm happy with it, and will try for improvements.

Just a different perspective here... Others likely use HR differently, but I don't really use it to judge race capability. In training, I use it to keep me as close to the beneficial level of effort for improvements. In a race, I use it to keep me at the edge of a consistent effort throughout the race (helped by knowing the numbers from training. My last PR was NOT my target time (was hoping for sub 3:20, which would have been a 4+ minute PR... governed by HR, I came in a 3:15:38... nice surprise by governing effort with HR). At 52, I'm happy with it, and will try for improvements.

I should clarify my comments. I meant there was not enough information in his post to say what his race capability is. We do not have a clue of his maximum heart rate, so any of what it represents. We only have his goals and how he says it feels.

By early in training, I think it can distract newer runners who really just need more running. It's easy to get caught up in the details before you really need to. (Though some enjoy it, and for them it maybe helps)

But, it probably would be great if it convinced some people to relax and not think every run needs to be hard! Sometimes people have the hardest time running easy. I know, my easy pace is in the mid tens, and based on the past I think my half would be about 1:50. When I was racing a 1:40 half, easy runs were in middish 9's. Now, if you don't know what you are capable of, or you are running your half at easy pace just to finish it's not really applicable, but I do get nervous when people are running all their runs at 8:45-9:15 and truly having difficulty breaking 2 in the half. . Now I'm not a good runner, but I did cut massive amounts of times off by slowing most my runs way down when it seemed embarrassing to slow down that much and I thought what I was doing WAS easy even though I wasn't racing significantly faster than I was running day to day. I used Daniels VDOT to teach me, but I think heart rate could accomplish the same thing if you're inclined.

jicama

Did we win?

posted: 1/15/2013 at 5:00 PM

I'm loving what I'm getting out of this thread; thanks for all of your thoughtful comments.

Today was an odd day. I run on Sun, Tue, Wed, Thu and Sat so I had yesterday off and planned to run today. I had a situation at work where I had to work last night (instead of sleep) and left at 8 am and ran this morning (again, instead of sleeping). It was a beautiful morning to run and I really enjoyed it.; you can see my workout here. I ran 13.5 miles in 2:15 and kept my HR around 150 (until the end) without walking. This was quite different from my run Sunday where I couldn't run all the time at 160 BPM. I didn't expect that one day off would make such a difference. Would this be caused by my running intervals on Saturday?

I'm going to keep watching my HR; this is fascinating. I don't know what to think about my upcoming half, but I'm not losing hope.

I should clarify my comments. I meant there was not enough information in his post to say what his race capability is. We do not have a clue of his maximum heart rate, so any of what it represents. We only have his goals and how he says it feels.

By early in training, I think it can distract newer runners who really just need more running. It's easy to get caught up in the details before you really need to. (Though some enjoy it, and for them it maybe helps)

But, it probably would be great if it convinced some people to relax and not think every run needs to be hard! Sometimes people have the hardest time running easy. I know, my easy pace is in the mid tens, and based on the past I think my half would be about 1:50. When I was racing a 1:40 half, easy runs were in middish 9's. Now, if you don't know what you are capable of, or you are running your half at easy pace just to finish it's not really applicable, but I do get nervous when people are running all their runs at 8:45-9:15 and truly having difficulty breaking 2 in the half. . Now I'm not a good runner, but I did cut massive amounts of times off by slowing most my runs way down when it seemed embarrassing to slow down that much and I thought what I was doing WAS easy even though I wasn't racing significantly faster than I was running day to day. I used Daniels VDOT to teach me, but I think heart rate could accomplish the same thing if you're inclined.

Great clarification... thanks. I had understood it differently. I agree that many run hard all the time with little variance it effort.

I'm loving what I'm getting out of this thread; thanks for all of your thoughtful comments.

Today was an odd day. I run on Sun, Tue, Wed, Thu and Sat so I had yesterday off and planned to run today. I had a situation at work where I had to work last night (instead of sleep) and left at 8 am and ran this morning (again, instead of sleeping). It was a beautiful morning to run and I really enjoyed it.; you can see my workout here. I ran 13.5 miles in 2:15 and kept my HR around 150 (until the end) without walking. This was quite different from my run Sunday where I couldn't run all the time at 160 BPM. I didn't expect that one day off would make such a difference. Would this be caused by my running intervals on Saturday?

I'm going to keep watching my HR; this is fascinating. I don't know what to think about my upcoming half, but I'm not losing hope.

A poor day CAN be caused by a single previous overdone day... intervals OR just consistently running too fast... VERY easily! If you think the intervals were harder than what you're accustom to doing in other weeks, then yes, they can do it. COMPARISON CONCEPT: I used to do long runs way too fast... they were often at lactate threshold pace (intervals can kill you in a similar way, especially if longer and harder). I did it because I could (similar mistake to what heatherruns is rightly warning us about). But I was ruining subsequent runs... so I'd go through cycles of poor performance, then after some real recovery, I did very well. So I learned to use LT (lactate threshold) levels that I could do well (but not kill me) as a way to rate other types of runs, thus I slowed down on my LRs and did MUCH better.